Human rights at the turn of the 21st century

PublishedSeptember 25, 2012

Whatever the current attitudes and policies of governments, the reality of popular demands for human rights, including both greater economic justice and greater political freedom, is beyond debate. A deepening and widening concern for the promotion and protection of human rights on all fronts, hastened by the ideal of self-determination in a postcolonial era, is now unmistakably woven into the fabric of contemporary world affairs.

Substantially responsible for this progressive development has been the work of the UN, its allied agencies, and such regional organizations as the Council of Europe, the OAS, and the AU. Also contributing to this development, particularly since the 1970s and ’80s, have been five other salient factors: (1) the public advocacy of human rights as a key aspect of national foreign policies, made initially legitimate by the example of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, (2) the emergence and spread of civil society on a transnational basis, primarily in the form of activist nongovernmental human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Interights, and Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and diverse faith-based and professional groups, (3) a worldwide profusion of teaching and research devoted to the study of human rights in both formal and informal settings, (4) the proliferation of large UN conferences in areas such as children’s rights, population, social development, women’s rights, human settlements, and food production and distribution, and (5) a mounting feminist intellectual and political challenge regarding not only the rights of women worldwide, but also what feminists consider the paternalistic myths and myth structures that purport to define humane governance generally.

To be sure, because the application of international human rights law depends for the most part on the voluntary consent of nations, formidable obstacles attend the endeavours of human rights policy makers, activists, and scholars. Human rights conventions continue to be undermined by the failure of states to ratify them and by emasculating reservations and derogations, by self-serving reporting systems that outnumber objective complaint procedures, and by poor financing for the implementation of human rights prescriptions. In short, the mechanisms for the enforcement of human rights are still in their infancy. Nevertheless, it is certain that, out of necessity no less than out of realism, a palpable concern for the advancement of human rights is here to stay.

*Excerpts from Burns H. Weston’s article (Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law; Associate Dean for International and Comparative Legal Studies, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Coauthor of Human Rights in the World Community and others.)

Middle English parlai speech, probably from Middle French parlee, from Medieval Latin parabolare, from Late Latin parabola speech, parable

First Known Use: 1580*

“Parley” is a discussion or conference, especially one between enemies over terms of a truce or points in dispute or other matters; mutual discourse.

The root of the word parley is parler, which is the French verb “to speak”.

Beginning in the High Middle Ages with the expansion of monarchs, a parley, or “talk”, was a meeting held between kings and their Chief Retainers. Parleys were part of the many changes in Europe, especially regarding governments. These meetings can be attributed to the formation of parliaments, which are derived from a similar root, parliamentum, simply meaning “talking”.**

Act V Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare
Drum. Enter BRUTUS, CASSIUS, and their Army; LUCILIUS, TITINIUS, MESSALA, and others
BRUTUS: They stand, and would have parley.